Is This Modern Art Worth $30,000?

[Ivan Seeking]

I am glad to concede that the definition of art is elusive. I can also understand the value in collectable modern art. But there comes a point where stuff is just ridiculous.

Ejaculate in Trajectory

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5236674

$30,000? Please, I could knock out a photo like that in five minutes - ten minutes on a good day.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Hal Foster, e.g., says regarding some of his works and some of Warhol, Cindy Sherman and others is grounded in the psychoanalytical works of Lacan and Kristeva, about the body and of the self and the Other. “In a world in which the Other has collapsed: Kristeva implies a crisis in the paternal law that underwrites the social order.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abjection
Just saying.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

http://www.artic.edu/artaccess/AA_Impressionist/images/seurat_med.jpg
I like this one too.

 

[lisab]

I like this one too.

 

[Gokul43201]

http://www.artic.edu/artaccess/AA_Impressionist/images/seurat_med.jpg
I like this one too.

I love Seurat. It's what I show to people who insist that art is pointless.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I love Seurat. It's what I show to people who insist that art is pointless.

I'm so stealing that.

 

[waht]

$30,000? Please, I could knock out a photo like that in five minutes - ten minutes on a good day.

I don't know anything about this artist. But if the artist is famous and has reputation, then the price could be justified, or at least by his or her fans.

 

[turbo]

Many years ago, my best friend called from Pittsburgh and asked if I'd meet him in Boston, since there was a large Manet exhibit there for a limited time. I said "I would love to, if it were Monet instead." There was dead silence for a couple of seconds, and he said "That's exactly what Nick said." Nick is a painter and sculptor whose work is in fine art museums all over the country. It's funny what drives our sensibilities regarding art. I think I was drawn to Monet early because I am near-sighted, and without glasses I tend to see scenes as a whole, not composed of individual objects, but as splashes of color.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't know anything about this artist. But if the artist is famous and has reputation, then the price could be justified, or at least by his or her fans.

A bunch of whack jobs if you ask me - the result of people with too much time and money on their hands which is then rationalized to have meaning.

It reminds me a bit of audiophiles who buy $2000 speaker cables for their stereo.

 

[turbo]

A bunch of whack jobs if you ask me - the result of people with too much time and money on their hands which is then rationalized to have meaning.

Perhaps time to revisit the Jackson Pollack thread.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps time to revisit the Jackson Pollack thread.

Why? Is he a nut too?

Whoops, sorry, I misread that. You mean the guy who pees on paper?

 

[turbo]

Why? Is he a nut too?

Whoops, sorry, I misread that. You mean the guy who pees on paper?

The guy who would lay on scaffolding over huge canvas drop-cloths and spatter them with paint. Millions have been spent collecting such self-absorbed "art". Give me just one Monet, and I'd be happy.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Some people, maybe valuing the art-world’s judgement from knowledge and experience, feel it is worth that. Some people also like Seurat :) . Turbo appreciates Monet. From heated previous threads Zoobyshoe and Cyrus are among others who like Pollock. Some may prefer to see a real bowl of flowers sitting on their kitchen table.

I imagine those who work in astronomy may have a special appreciation of the awe inspired by astronomical images. Turbo mentioned being particularly drawn to Monet’s work, and reasoned that it could be to do with his eye-sight, which gives Turbo a particular appreciation for Monet’s sight. From memory, I think Cyrus had studied the Modernism. Often some sort of understanding, be it an understanding for Monet’s sight, or for astronomy, or be it some other means of attaining a familiarity with whatever image, helps us find in images things we can enjoy or find interestingly challenging.

It can be possible to enjoy different things on different levels. The Guardian critic, not unlike Ivan, has said of Serrano’s work (op) generally that it is superficial. I find it interesting on a couple of levels, but I find many other things much more challenging/interesting, so don’t completely disagree with Ivan and think it’s good to discuss and learn from different views.

 

[Newai]

This is Serrano, the guy who did the "Piss Christ," (sold@$162,000) A few years ago, his works were vandalized. This makes me wonder just how it's even possible to vandalize his "art." More like ended up as public anonymous collaboration.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Perhaps time to revisit the Jackson Pollack thread.

I like Jackson Pollock.

I however, would not describe myself as someone who likes art, especially pictures of 'things'. I seriously went round an art gallery once spending less than 3 seconds on each painting. Once you've seen a picture of a tree or a woman you seen them all, they are essentially crap photographs.

However pictures that aren't particulally of anything are the ones I seem to like. I suppose if you were to box it in and give it a label it would be abstract art, with an emphasiss on either total randomness or geometric shapes.

Edit: Also is this thread title a pun regarding the first post?

 

[fuzzyfelt]

A few years ago, his works were vandalized. This makes me wonder just how it's even possible to vandalize his "art." More like ended up as public anonymous collaboration.

good thoughts.

 

[Borek]

Once you've seen a picture of a tree or a woman you seen them all, they are essentially crap photographs.

If you have seen one Pollock's painting you have seen them all.

That's not to take any side in the discussion, that's just to show how easily this argument can be reversed.

 

[xxChrisxx]

If you have seen one Pollock's painting you have seen them all.

That's not to take any side in the discussion, that's just to show how easily this argument can be reversed.

I'd have to agree with that, Pollocks do all look the same. It's my problem of being an art cretin, I don't see the 'feelings' or what the artist was trying to 'express', I just see a picture. A picture of a landscape or an old hag is just a bit 'meh'.

I find splashes of random paint to be pretty cool, especially when you do it to a guitar :D


I also don't get analysing paintings. "The vivid use of red conveys the artists internal anger" What? What if he went to the shops and red paint was cheap that day?

 

[hypatia]

Pablo Picasso, Dora Maar au Chat. 1941. Sold 2006, $101.8 million.

 

[FlexGunship]

$30,000? Please, I could knock out a photo like that in five minutes - ten minutes on a good day.

Okay, besides that being surprisingly funny after a quick second-read, I disagree with your premise. The value of art is exactly whatever anyone will pay for it (which is one of my biggest gripes about my comic book collector friend... "it's not worth $500 if no one will pay you that much for it").

Incidentally, my only complaint about art is that none of parts are easily replaceable if it breaks. The mantra of a good engineer: Universal parts! Ease of replacement!

[URL]http://69.90.174.253/photos/display_pic_with_logo/56455/56455,1202671980,1.jpg[/URL]

 

[physics girl phd]

I once had a philosophy of art teacher who once said something along the lines of: "Your poop is the most artistic thing many of you will ever make... you produced it and it's solely your creation." At least, no one else will probably want to lay claim to it.

Elephant poop on the other hand... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Ofili" for the rest of us.

 

[jtbell]

Some real nutty "art":

 

[FlexGunship]

Some real nutty "art":

FOUL!